alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edmund M. Sweeney, administrator of the estate of Felix Lacombe, deceased *vs.*Catherine Lebel, alias Catherine Label.

Kennebec.

Opinion, January 5, 1943.

*281
      *Edmund M. Sweeney,*

*William H. Niehoff,*for the plaintiff.

*Clayton E. Eames,*for the defendant.

Sitting: Sturgis, C.J.,Thaxter, Hudson,Manser,Murchie, Chapman, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is an action of trover brought by the administrator of the estate of Felix Lacombe for the conversion of a diamond ring. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the case is before us on a general motion for a new trial and on exceptions.

The Motion

The ring had been worn by the deceased, and the defendant claims thát he gave it to her in his lifetime as an engagement ring. There was some evidence to corroborate her story. On the other hand the ring was in his possession just prior to his death and the evidence shows that he was wearing it then. The defendant, a few hours before Mr. Lacombe died and after he had had a shock, removed it from his finger. The question whether the deceased gave the ring to the defendant was peculiarly one for the jury and their finding against the contention of the defendant cannot be disturbed.

*282The Exceptions

The first exception is to the admission in evidence of a conversation of the defendant relating to the gift of a stick pin. It appears that the conversation concerned both the gift of the ring in question and the stick pin. The presiding justice admitted it only in so far as it related to the gift of the ring. With that limitation, which was explained to the jury, it was admissible.

The second exception is to the admission of certain statements by the defendant as to the value of the ring. These were admitted by the court on the question of the credibility of the defendant, it being contended that she had made contradictory statements. Whether the evidence was admissible on this specific ground it is unnecessary to decide, for we cannot see anything prejudicial to the defendant in the ruling.

The third exception is to the refusal of the presiding justice to permit a witness, Orel J. Richards, to state what reason Mr. Lacombe gave for going to the office of the plaintiff, Mr. Sweeney, on a certain date. As there is no indication what the purpose of the question was, or what the answer would have been, we have nothing before us to determine whether the exclusion was proper or not.

The fourth and fifth exceptions are to the admission of evidence on the cross-examination of Orel J. Richards relating to a check given by the deceased to the defendant. It is not altogether clear whether this evidence was admitted on the ground that it affected the credibility of the witness or whether it was thought that the gift of money had some bearing on the gift of the ring. It is rather difficult to understand how it was relevant on either question. At the same time we cannot see that the ruling was in any way prejudicial to the defendant.

*Motion overruled.*

*Exceptions overruled.*
Exhibit 21.1
 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
OF
FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
 Jurisdiction ofName of Subsidiary
    
    IncorporationAction Transport, Inc.
    
    DelawareBroyhill Furniture Industries, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaBroyhill Home Furnishings, Inc.
    
    DelawareBroyhill Retail, Inc.
    
    DelawareBroyhill Transport, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaDecorative Hardware Solutions (L) Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaFayette Enterprises, Inc.
    
    MississippiFurniture Brands Asia Ltd.
    
    Hong KongFurniture Brands Asia Ltd.
    
    VietnamFurniture Brands Canada ULC
    
    CanadaFurniture Brands Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareFurniture Brands Resource Company, Inc.
    
    DelawareFurniture Brands (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd.
    
    ChinaHDM Furniture Industries, Inc.
    
    DelawareHDM Transport, Inc.
    
    North CarolinaHDM Retail, Inc.
    
    DelawareLane Furniture Industries, Inc.
    
    MississippiLane Home Furnishings Retail, Inc.
    
    DelawareLaneventure, Inc.
    
    DelawareMaitland-Smith Asia Holdings Limited
    
    VanuatuMaitland-Smith Cebu, Inc.
    
    PhilippinesMaitland-Smith Furniture Industries, Inc.
    
    DelawareMaitland-Smith Limited
    
    Hong KongP.T. Maitland-Smith Indonesia
    
    IndonesiaMaitland-Smith Export (L) Bhd.
    
    MalaysiaThe Lane Company, Incorporated
    
    VirginiaThomasville Furniture Industries, Inc.
    
    DelawareThomasville Home Furnishings, Inc.
    
    DelawareThomasville Retail, Inc.
    
    Virginia
A batement Order filed September 3 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00474

- CV

____________ CHERYL SUE ZARSKY , APPELLANT

V. CAROLYN ANN WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE E STATE O F ORA WHITE, DECEASED, APPELLE E

On Appeal from the Probate Court No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 45660 1

- 401



### ABATEMENT ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment signed on April 2, 2020. The n otice of appeal was timely filed on July 1, 2020. On Augus t 2 6, 2020, counsel for appellant, Cheryl Sue Zarsky, filed a suggestion of death informing this court that
Za rsk y die d on August 4, 2020. Counsel believes that his cl ient die d tes tate naming her daughter, Cherie Zarsky, as independent exe cutri x. Counsel i nten ds to seek the

a ut hority to represent the estate of Cheryl Sue Zarsky in this appeal. Texas Rule of Appel lat e Procedure 7.1(a) (1) provides , If a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment b ut before the case has been finally disposed of on appeal, the appeal m aybe perfected, and the appellate court will p roceed to adjudicate the

appeal as if all parties were alive. The appellate court ’s judgmen t will have the same force and effe ct as if r endered when all parties were living. The dec edent part y ’s na me may be used on a ll papers. Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(1)

. Accordi ngly, we abate this appe al for 60 days to allow counsel time to

o btain a uthority from the e state of Cheryl Sue Zarsky to pursue this a ppeal. This

court w ill require assurance from the repre s entative of the estate of Cheryl Sue
Za rsky that it is represented by counsel within 60 da ys of this order, or the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Casillas v. Cano , 79 S.W.3d 587,
592 (Tex. App.

— Co rpus Christi

- Edinburgh 2002, n o pet.) ; Murphy v. Murphy , 21
S.W.3d 797, 798 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, published orde r).

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Nevada ClassicThoroughbreds, Inc.pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002regarding Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended June 30, 2020**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of Nevada Classic Thoroughbreds, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the "Company"), does hereby certify that, based upon her knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,2020 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

> 
Dated: September 27, 2020 

By: /s/ Pamela Brimhall 

 

________________________________________

 

Pamela Brimhall   Principal Financial Officer  Chief Accounting Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer
No. 56384.

protests 58371-K, etc. (Honolulu).

#### Osaki Shoten, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

May 24, 1962

No. 66789.

#### Ebeling & Reuss Company et al. *v.*United States,

protests 204823-K, etc. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of earthenware teapots similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Justin Tharaud & Son, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 216, C.D. 2177), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IPAC Operational Metrics for July 2023

- Sheet1
(Reap. Dec. 10996)

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 290; 292.

*689(Decided June 2, 1965)

*Stein & Shostah*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases which is incorporated herein that on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the invoice unit values plus the f .o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission on said merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that as to any of the merchandise on the invoices covered by the entries the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Gases which is included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521 as provided for in See. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress which is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, that there were no higher foreign values for such or similar merchandise on the dates of exportation involved herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the footwear [sic] covered by the entries, the subject of the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, is unlike any articles manufactured or produced in the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402a (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such value was in each case the invoice unit value, plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying-commission in said invoices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D21-1713

_____________________________

JOHN ROGERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Ana Garcia, Judge.

September 15, 2021

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.

 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

John Rogers, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Correct a Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) Line

To correct a MICR line, complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Scan – Perform Check Scan page, the Check Processing Error: Reject 

Characters Detected/Unsupported Bank Number message appears. Click Yes to correct the 

code line.

Or

Click Rescan to rescan the check (applies only to Reject Characters Detected message).

Click Rescan if the check image is skewed, illegible, or upside down.

Or 

Click Cancel to cancel the transaction.

2. The Login ID and Password dialog box appears. Enter the Login ID and Password and 

click Login.

• If a Check Capture Operator (CCO) scanned the check, OTCnet will prompt the 

operator for authorization. 

• Only a Check Capture Supervisor (CCS) or Check Capture Lead Operator

(CCLO) can perform MICR line corrections. 

• The CCS or CCLO must key in his/her Login ID and Password before correcting the 

MICR line.

• If a CCLO scanned the check, additional authorization is not required.

3. The Code Line Correction box appears. Enter the correct numbers and click OK.

4. The Code Line Correction box closes and the scanned check image appears.

Application Tip

Application Tips
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 2 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 4 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 5 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 6 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 7 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 8 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 9 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 10 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 11 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 12 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 13 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 14 of 15
Case 2:05-cv-04557-NS Document 26-4 Filed 01/04/07 Page 15 of 15
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8100

O’MARK SHANELL BEST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-836-5-HO) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 27, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. O’Mark Shanell Best, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: O’Mark Shanell Best appeals the district court’s order and judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Because Best was sentenced to less than twenty years’ imprisonment, there was no violation under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). See United States v. General , F.3d , 2002 WL 90833 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Best’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
-                          Home                     
-                          Data Products                     
-                     Major Land Uses                

# Major Land Uses

ERS has been a source of major land use estimates in the United States for over 60 years, and the related U.S. cropland used for crops series (Summary table 3 below) dates back to 1910 and is updated annually. The Major Land Uses (MLU) series is the longest running, most comprehensive accounting of all major uses of public and private land in the United States. The series was started in 1945, and has since been published about every 5 years, coinciding with the Census of Agriculture.
          - See the latest ERS report in the series:   Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2017   

Data from all 16 Major Land Uses reports have been combined into a set of files showing major land use estimates by region and State from 1945 to 2017. Note that Alaska and Hawaii were added in 1959, when they achieved Statehood. Since Alaska contains such vast acreage, U.S. totals in all categories prior to 1959 may appear to change precipitously.

See Documentation for more information about using this data product, including detailed definitions of major land uses and terms. For citations of the previous MLU reports, see Major Land Use Reports Since 1948.

**Errata:**

On September 13, 2024, the Major Land Uses data product was revised to reflect changes in the 1987, 1992, and 1997 values for total forest use land in certain Northeastern States, as well as the forest use land, special use land, and urban land for certain Northeastern states in 1992. Also, the regional total for rural transportation in the Northeast region in 2007 was corrected. No other values were affected.

On May 7, 2024, Summary Table 3 "Total Cropland Used for Crops" in the Major Land Uses data product was revised for 2013–15 to be consistent with and reflect the underlying historical data available in the USDA, NASS *QuickStats* database since 2019. About a third of the values were affected, with revisions to total crops harvested, total cropland harvested, and cropland used for crops. The 2013 value for double cropped acres was also revised.

-  Summary tables 
-  Total land 
-  Cropland 
-  - Cropland components 
-  Grassland pasture and range 
-  Forest-use land 
-  - Forest-use land components 
-  Special uses 
-  - Special use components 
-  Urban area 
-  Other or miscellaneous land uses 
-  CSV Format of Historical Data 

- Overview
- Documentation
- Major Land Use Reports Since 1948

-  Conservation Programs 
-  Irrigation & Water Use 
-  Environmental Quality 
-  Farm Practices & Management 
-  Natural Resources & Environment 
-  Land Use, Land Value & Tenure 
-  Crop & Livestock Practices 
-  Climate Change 

**Last updated:** Friday, September 13, 2024

**For more information, contact:**Clayton P. Winters-Michaud and Scott  Callahan
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GRACE LAWRENCE :

484 Redbud Ct. :

Warrington, PA 18976 :

PLAINTIFF, :

:

vs. : 

: Civil Action No. 02-4440

TRANS UNION, LLC :

555 West Adams :

Chicago, IL 60661 :

and :

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA :

1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor :

Philadelphia, PA 19102 :

Defendants

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

TO THE CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel of record for defendant, City

of Philadelphia, in the above-captioned action.

HONORABLE NELSON A. DIAZ

CITY SOLICITOR

 

JIM COUSOUNIS

Deputy City Solicitor 

LAW DEPARTMENT

1515 Arch Street, 17th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

(215) 683-5020

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Dated: 07/29/02

Case 2:02-cv-04440-AB Document 2 Filed 07/25/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

NATHANIEL HURT 

USM#59815-066 

CRIMINAL NO. 05-431-1 

ORDER 

AND NOW this {_jp day of tV) ~2015,pursuantto 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, and by agreement of the 

parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the term of imprisonment in this case is reduced to 272 

months, effective November 1, 2015. 

The Honorable Berle M. Schiller 

Senior United States District Court Judge 

3-Zl.- I? C'~ 7"0: 

CJ. 5. /lf.411SH/'rL_ 

Case 2:05-cr-00431-BMS Document 90 Filed 03/26/15 Page 1 of 1
Eagle Eye Systems, LLC 333 Exemption Amendment 160107v3-signed.docx 1 of 1

7 JANUARY 2016

Eagle Eye Systems, Inc.

310W 56th - Apt 14A

New York, NY 10019

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE Washington DC 20590 

Re: Additional Aircraft Amendment to Exemption No. 13586; Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

3558. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 

14 CFR Part 11, Eagle Eye Systems, Inc., 310W 56th - Apt 14A, New York, NY 10019, operator of 

small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) hereby requests an amendment to our exemption no. 

13586, issued on 16 NOV 2015 as an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations 

(“FARs”) to allow commercial operation of designated UAS. 

Eagle Eye Systems is requesting an amendment to add a sUAS to our existing 333 exemption as 

listed and described above. The amendment will serve to increase the functionality and usefulness 

of UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working environments in the 

industries in which they are deployed. Eagle Eye Systems would like to add an additional 

multirotor designed in-house using commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components. Eagle Eye 

Systems cites Exemption No. 11256A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0908 as evidence that this 

request is within the summary approval criteria for amendments to existing exemptions.

Manufacturer: EES

Model No.: DJI Flame Wheel 550 (F550) with Pixhawk Autopilot (3DR Pixhawk)

The EES-F550P meets all weight, speed and other conditions stipulated in exemption letter 13586. 

Sincerely,

Alberto Corvo

Alberto Corvo

CEO

Eagle Eye Systems, Inc.

310W 56th - Apt 14A, 

New York, NY 10019

Alberto@EagleEyeSys.com
No. 50905.

#### Petition 6429-R of Jack Schaefer, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The president of the importing corporation testified that he gave his customs broker who made the .entry all the information he had as to the value of the merchandise and that he knew of no other value at the time of entry. It further appeared from the official papers that the customs broker requested information from the customs officials concerning the value but that the appraiser’s reply was “No current information.” From the evidence it was found that there was no intention to defraud the Government or to deceive its officials. The petition was therefore granted.
# sec4_attribtable_2019

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-14	&"Arial,Bold"&9IV AT - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10Draft IRC Handout July 2019